EDFD 220: PHILOSOPHICAL ORIENTATION TO

EDUCATION FALL 2018 HYBRID DAVID KENNEDY

UN 2174 973-655-4279 kennedyd@montclair.edu
OFFICE HOURS: BY APPOINTMENT
GOALS: The purpose of this course is to explore together the philosophical dimensions of
educational theory and practice. In the process, we will listen to some of the voices in the history
of educational thought, and relate those voices to the history of educational and child-rearing
practices in the West. The desired outcome of the course is that you begin to reflect on the relation
between theory and practice in education, and to develop an approach to your own educational
practice that both informs and is informed by that reflection. The course will be conducted in a
community of inquiry format, a methodology which is based on the assumption that a great part
of what we learn will emerge from the communal dialogue which takes place as we problematize
the concepts that we encounter in the readings. As such, the key to success in this course is full
participation in the form of reading, writing, speaking and listening.

PHILOSOPHY: A philosophical belief is a consciously held belief about being, about how
and what we can know for sure, about who we are, about persons, nature and society, about the
good, the beautiful, and about what and who we are responsible for. We have thought about it. We
recognize its assumptions (the things it is taking for granted), or at least we recognize that it has
assumptions, even though we may not be sure of what they are. This means that it is self-critical,
that it is ready to question its assumptions; it recognizes that it could be wrong, and is open to
change. As such, a philosophical belief is arguable: someone else might have a different belief
about the same thing.

PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION: Philosophy of education is a set of consciously

held beliefs about the nature, the goals, and the practice of education. Some of the beliefs that we
will be reading about and thinking together about in this class are: the nature of the child; the nature
of the adult, both as it is given and as we want it to be (the “ideal adult”); the nature of learning;
the nature of teaching; what is the most valuable knowledge (what should be taught?); how
knowledge holds together (the nature of the disciplines); the forms that education can take (the
media, the school, tutoring, self-education, the education that the community gives); the social and
economic and political goals of education: should we educate for reproduction of the existing
social, economic and political system, or for the transformation of that system? Our task in this
course is to “out” those beliefs in ourselves and others, and to question their assumptions together,
with the goal of arriving at more reasonable, more consciously held beliefs.

COURSE METHODOLOGY: The preferred teaching method of this course is based

on group dialogue (not debate), and is called “community of philosophical inquiry” (CPI). Its
major difference from traditional instruction is that it is based on the question, not the proposition;
and rather than empirical questions, it focuses on philosophical questions and concepts—concepts
that have a philosophical dimension. Typically, philosophical concepts are common, central, and
contestable (CCC)—that is, all humans think about them (common), they are important to all
EDFD 220 PHILOSOPHICAL ORIENTATION TO EDUCATION 2

humans (central), and third, people can answer them in very different ways (contestable), which
is why we approach them in a questioning manner rather than as truths or certainties. Examples of
CCC concepts are justice, friendship, autonomy, identity, power, freedom, human nature,
responsibility, authority, culture, motivation, discipline, education, school, child, adult, learning.
We are dedicated as a CPI to problematizing these concepts as we find them, taking them apart
and starting to put them together again as a thinking group; that is our task. This implies making
a distinction between the descriptive and the normative, or the “is” and the “ought.” We don’t just
think about what school is in our present historical moment (descriptive), we think about what
school could be or ought to be in a better world (normative). But then we must ask, how could a
world be better than it is? And what is a world? And so on.

The learning theory of CPI is based on the Russian social psychologist Lev Vygotsky’s notion of
the zone of proximal development (ZPD). Vygotsky claimed that if someone who is more
advanced is interacting with someone who is less advanced, the less advanced person will tend to
operate at a higher level. In the case of CPI, that more advanced “person” is the group as a whole.
The distributed intelligence of the group is greater than the intelligence of any one person.
Learning happens when a group member makes a logical move in the dialogue—for example,
giving a counter-example to the statement by another group member that “all politicians are liars.”
That move—giving a counterexample (“I know of a politician who is not a liar”—is then
internalized by the members of the group, and becomes a part of each person’s critical thinking
repertoire. The critical thinking moves that we will be learning to recognize and use through this
process of internalization are listed on pp. 8-11 below.

REQUIRED TEXTS: All readings are posted for download in Canvas Modules.

COURSE REQUIREMENTS:
I. ATTENDANCE AND PARTICIPATION
This course is designed to be interactive and collaborative, and requires each member's presence
and participation in both online and in person sessions for complete success. Attendance will be
taken, and more than one unexcused absence will result in a point reduction. Leaving early
without explanation, whether in person or online, will count as an absence. PLEASE: ALL
CELL PHONES TURNED OFF AND STOWED. NO COMPUTERS OR TABLETS EXCEPT FOR
COURSE USE.

II. ASSIGNMENTS

A. WEEKLY ASSIGNMENTS: Discussion Board, Abstracts & Chat

1) Complete all assigned readings, viewings and Slides-with-Audio (pptx & mp3).
Readings are listed below and online in the Canvas Modules, and can be downloaded there.

2) By 11:00PM on the night BEFORE each class, respond to two of the questions
posted on DISCUSSION BOARD. Two (2) possible points.
EDFD 220 PHILOSOPHICAL ORIENTATION TO EDUCATION 3

3) On the day AFTER class post a 250 WORD MINIMUM SUMMARY/ABSTRACT,

double-spaced, of ALL the assigned readings for the week, including charts. A total of 10
abstracts are required. Three (3) possible points each. State the central ideas and
argument of each of the assigned texts or charts in your own words, and wherever possible,
point out connections between the different texts and charts. Do not insert your own
opinion: summarize only.

Scoring Rubric

3 2 1 0
Central 1. The central argument of each Only 2 of the Only one No criteria
Ideas/ text is summarized with criteria are criterion is are met
Argument accuracy and clarity met met

2. Connections are made between

the arguments of each reading

3. Adequate grammar and usage

4) Participate in ONLINE DISCUSSIONS IN CHAT: at least five (5) substantive

interventions are required. Fewer will be marked orange in attendance.

B. COMPARISON PAPERS

I will post a topic for each of TWO (2) 1000-1500 word COMPARISON PAPERS in which I
ask you to compare and contrast a specified set of texts in light of one or more questions that I
pose. These papers will be submitted online on Weeks VI and XII. As you respond to the
assignment, refer to the central ideas and argument of each of the writers of the assigned texts,
charts or videos, and point out connections between them. Twenty-five (25) points each.

C. PAIR-GENERATED MIDTERM RESEARCH REPORTS.

We will divide into PAIRS (groups of 2). Each pair will conduct Internet research, and prepare
a multimedia PowerPoint presentation, followed by a paper (5 pages minimum) and—
including any available non-promotional video clip--on one of the following schools or
educational movements. Twenty-five (25) points.

1. THE PESTALOZZI METHOD (“ANSCHAUUNG”)

2. FRIEDRICH FROEBEL KINDERGARTEN (THE “GIFTS)
3. MONTESSORI SCHOOLS (THE “MONTESSORI MATERIALS”)
4. LEO TOLSTOY: YASNAYA POLONYA SCHOOL
5. FRANCESCO FERRER: THE “MODERN SCHOOL” MOVEMENT
6. THE STELTON SCHOOL (PISCATAWAY NJ)
7. THE BEEHIVE SCHOOL (SEBASTIEN FAURE)
8. REGGIO EMILIA (NB: the Italian school only)
EDFD 220 PHILOSOPHICAL ORIENTATION TO EDUCATION 4

9. WALDORF SCHOOLS
10. CAROLINE PRATT (CITY AND COUNTRY SCHOOL)
11. W.H. KILPATRICK: THE PROJECT METHOD
12. MARIETTA JOHNSON, THE ORGANIC SCHOOL
13. THE DALTON PLAN (“HOUSE, ASSIGNMENT, LABORATORY”)
14. THE RANDOLPH SCHOOL (WAPPINGERS FALLS, NY)
15. SUMMERHILL SCHOOL
16. SUDBURY VALLEY SCHOOL
17. FAIRHAVEN SCHOOL (Maryland)
18. PUTNEY SCHOOL
19. DANISH FOLK SCHOOLS
20. SANDS SCHOOL
21. WINDSOR HOUSE SCHOOL
22. PHILOSOPHY FOR CHILDREN
23. HIGHLANDER FOLK SCHOOL
24. ST. JOHN’S COLLEGE, ANNAPOLIS & SANTA FE
25. INTERNATIONAL DEMOCRATIC EDUCATION NETWORK (PICK A
SCHOOL): http://www.idenetwork.org/democratic-schools.htm

Your report should cover the following aspects of the school or system that you are
investigating. Organize your PowerPoint and your paper using these headings:

A. Historical and/or theoretical background

B. Philosophy of childhood
C. Philosophy of learning and teaching
D. Physical environment
E. Curriculum
F. Assessment
G. Governance
H. A detailed “day in the life” of one student in the school

D. EXTRA CREDIT. Write an abstract of at least 250 words for any optional reading assignment.
Up to four (4) points each. These can be done at any point in the semester.

E. FINAL PAPER: Theme TBA. Thirty-five (35) points. Due Week XVI.

EVALUATION: 217 POINTS TOTAL

1. Discussion Boards: 24 (12 X 2)
2. Abstracts: 27 (9X3)
3. Comparison papers: 50 (2 X 25)
4. Midterm research Powerpoint & paper: 25
5. Final paper: 35
6. Class Participation: 20
EDFD 220 PHILOSOPHICAL ORIENTATION TO EDUCATION 5

CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION:

DISCUSSION BOARDS:
Two (2) responses minimum
References to weekly readings and viewings

PAPERS & ABSTRACTS:

Relevance to the assignment
Thoroughness of author summaries
Focus and organization
Amount of reference to the reading materials
Finding comparative interconnections between readings
Grammar, usage and style
Plagiarism Policy: Please consult www.montclair.edu/pages/deanstudents/regulations1

CLASS PARTICIPATION:
Attendance (more than 1 unexcused absence will result in grade reduction)
Observance of cell phone and computer policies
Verbal and/or attentional participation
At least five (5) interventions during online Chats.
Evidence of developing classroom community-building skills
Evidence of developing communal inquiry skills (see pp. 10-13 below)

GRADING SCHEME
A 97-100 C+ 77-79
A- 92-96 C 72-76
B+ 88-91 C- 69-71
B 84-87 D 64-68
B- 80-83 F 0-63

WEEKLY READING SCHEDULE

All assignments are posted on Canvas
The instructor reserves the right to alter this schedule as he deems fit
IP=IN PERSON. OL=ONLINE

I. SYLLABUS & INTRODUCTION (IP)

Syllabus: BRING TO FIRST CLASS
Beliefs Test
“What Does the Word ‘Education’ Mean?” (Syllabus p.12)

II. THE INVISIBLE CURRICULUM (IP)

DISCUSSION BOARD: The Invisible Curriculum
 Gatto, “The Seven-Lesson Schoolteacher,” in Dumbing Us Down
 Gray, “Seven Sins of Our System of Forced Education”
EDFD 220 PHILOSOPHICAL ORIENTATION TO EDUCATION 6

 Miller, “The World is Changing, But Schools Aren’t Keeping Up,” in The
Self-Organizing Revolution
 OPTIONAL: Zinn, “Columbus, the Indians, and Human Progress”

III. ON HUMAN NATURE (IP)

DISCUSSION BOARD: On Human Nature
 Confucianism: Mencius and Hsun-Tzu
 Christianity: Augustine and Original Sin:
http://www.vision.org/visionmedia/article.aspx%3Fid%3D227
 Judaism: Yetzer Harov & Yetzer Hatov:
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-birth-of-the-good-inclination/
 Plato: The Three Parts of the Soul. Watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nrzam0sdrHY
 Hobbes: The State of Nature: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes-moral/ Read
Sections 2-8
 Freud: Id, Ego & Superego. Watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LG1o_tKrgfY
 Kropotkin, “Mutual Aid”
 CHART: Temperament: Nine Indicators
 FILM: “Democratic Schools” (IN CLASS)

IV. ON SOCIAL CHARACTER (OL)

DISCUSSION BOARD: On Social Character
 Fromm, “To Have and to Be”
 Patterson, “The Self-Actualized Person”
 Bellah, “Is Capitalism Compatible with Traditional Morality?”
 VIDEO: “Blue Eyes & Brown Eyes” (on the formation of social character)
 VIDEO: The Milgram Experiment: “Obedience”
 VIDEO: The Stanford Prison Experiment
 OPTIONAL: Westheimer & Kahne, “What Kind of Citizen?”
 FILM: “From August to June,” Part 1 (30 min)

V. PHILOSOPHY OF CHILDHOOD I: WHAT IS A CHILD? (IP)

DISCUSSION BOARD: On Childhood
 Erasmus, “On Education for Children”
 Sulzer, “From a German Child Rearing Manual”
 Rousseau, Selections from Emile
 Malaguzzi, “Image of the Child”
 CHART: Four Child Rearing Modes
 OPTIONAL: FILM: “The Children of Syria”
 FILM: “From August to June,” Part 2 (30 min)

VI. PHILOSOPHY OF CHILDHOOD II (OL)

COMPARISON PAPER I DUE
 Tomasello, from Why We Cooperate
 Sorin, “Constructs of Childhood: Constructs of Self”
EDFD 220 PHILOSOPHICAL ORIENTATION TO EDUCATION 7

 FILM: “From August to June,” Part 3 (30 min)

VII. ON SCHOOLING AND UNSCHOOLING (IP)

DISCUSSION BOARD: On Schooling
 Lancy, “Learning ‘From Nobody’”
 Blechman, “The Radical Critique of Schooling”
 “A Brief Overview of Progressive Education”

VIII. PLAY AND LEARNING (OL)

DISCUSSION BOARD: What Is Play?
 Gray, “The Human Educative Instincts”
 Levy, “Play Behavior”
 VIDEO: Joseph Chilton Pearce, “Play IS Learning”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVBXqJ_u8io
 Kennedy, “Play and Learning”

IX. REINVENTING SCHOOL (IP)

DISCUSSION BOARD: What Is a School?
 Miller, “A Map of Educational Alternatives”
 “The Jaggedness Principle”
 “Student Centered Learning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student-
centred_learning
 Progressive Education: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_education
 Levine, “The School of One, the School of Tomorrow”
 Alexander, “Children’s Home”
 CHART: Archetypal Places
 CHART: Social Ecology Systems
 CHART: Two Forms of Order

X. SCHOOLING AND DEMOCRACY (OL)

DISCUSSION BOARD: What Happens at School?
 Miller, “Principles of 21st Century Education”
 Read, “Anarchism and Education”
 Brodhagen, “The Situation Made Us Special”
 VIDEOS: Direct Democratic practice at Sudbury Valley School:
o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg9lf7wyQRo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYWWFfN4XA0&index=7&list=PL4Gk
ZFAajp6lqpJ_GkTW617OQZkdNui7b
o Noam Chomsky on John Dewey &
Democracy:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZFuOZ0yTNM
 OPTIONAL: Dewey, “My Pedagogic Creed”
 OPTIONAL: Adorno, “Education After Auschwitz”
 FILM: “Good Morning Mission Hill,” Part 1 (30 min)

XI. ON LEARNING (IP)

EDFD 220 PHILOSOPHICAL ORIENTATION TO EDUCATION 8

WEB RESEARCH PAPER DUE

DISCUSSION BOARD: On Learning
 “Blooming and Pruning of Brain Connections”
 VIDEO: Mercogliano, “The Self-Organizing Child” (YouTube 17 min)
 Bjorklund, “On Piaget’s Theory”
 Rinaldi, “Creativity as a Quality of Thought”
 OPTIONAL: Whitehead, “The Rhythmic Claims of Freedom and Discipline”
 FILM: “Good Morning Mission Hill” Part 2 (30 min)

XII. ON TEACHING 1 (OL)

COMPARISON PAPER 2 DUE
DISCUSSION BOARD: On Teaching
 Freire, “Banking v. Problem-Solving Models of Education”
 Paul, “Two Conflicting Theories of Knowledge, Learning & Literacy”
 Reznitskaya, “Dialogic Teaching”
 OPTIONAL: Paul, “Dialogical and Dialectical Thinking”
 CHART: Four Curriculum Models
 FILM: “The Path,” Part 1 (30 min)

XIII. ON TEACHING 2 (IP)

DISCUSSION BOARD: The Child and the Curriculum
 Dewey, Schools of Tomorrow Chapter One
 OPTIONAL: Dewey, “The Child and the Curriculum”
 Jones, “Emergent Curriculum” (from The Lively Kindergarten)
 Jones, “Emergence of the Emergent Curriculum”
 “Reggio Emilia: The Project Method”
 FILM: “The Path,” Part 2 (30 min)

XIV. ASSESSING CHILDREN (OL)

DISCUSSION BOARD: On Measurement
 Carini, “Philosophy of Descriptive Practice”
 Carini, “Prospect’s Descriptive Process”
 Rinaldi, “Documentation & Assessment: What is the Relationship”

XV. FINAL (OL)

FINAL PAPER DUE
 “The Language of School Design” 1 & 2
 Plato: “Allegory of the Cave”
 Beliefs Test

SELF-EVALUATION FOR COMMUNITIES OF INQUIRY

FIRST QUESTION: WHAT CCC CONCEPTS WERE UNDER DISCUSSION?

A. Cognitive Inquiry
EDFD 220 PHILOSOPHICAL ORIENTATION TO EDUCATION 9

 Were we reasoning well? (asking for and offering reasons, making careful inferences,
identifying assumptions, offering definitions, using criteria, making good distinctions)
 Were we thinking creatively? (making metaphors, using images, trying out other points
of view, thinking of new possibilities, extending ideas, transferring old forms to new
contexts)
 Did our discussion open up the topic? Was it deep or superficial? Did we construct a
rich, complex understanding of the texts?
 Is there evidence of self-correction? (correcting thinking mistakes, noticing missing
points of view, changing one’s mind, adapting one’s beliefs/values)

B. Social Inquiry
 Did we share control/management of the discussion, or did the teacher or a dominant
clique control/manage it?
 Did most of us contribute to the conversation, or did a few people dominate?
 Did we work for inclusion—bringing in minority voices?
 Did we give all opinions equal intellectual consideration?
 Were we actively listening to each other? (eye contact, looking at each other instead of
the teacher, nodding, sit in different places, no side conversations, paraphrasing, asking
questions)
 Were we responding to each other? (rather than just taking turns speaking; relating what
we say to what has been said before)
 Was there inappropriate aggression or belittlement?

C. Affective Inquiry
 Were we respectful of each other? (responding, polite tone of voice and word choice,
lack of aggression, insult and dismissal, avoiding making the discussion too personal)
 Were we caring of each other? (helping a timid person make his point, getting to know
each other well enough to know what is important to each of us)

D. Inquiry Outcomes
 Did the inquiry advance? What kinds of progress were there? (new connections,
distinctions, definitions)
 What have we learned?
 What new questions can we now ask, that we couldn’t before?
 Was the discussion relevant and meaningful to us?

SOME COMMON, CENTRAL, AND INHERENTLY CONTESTABLE

(CCC) CONCEPTS:

Self Knowledge Freedom Individual

Mind Friend Justice Society
Ideas Cause Persons Beautiful
Thinking Effect Animals Love
God Rights Good History
Nature Duty Evil Technology
EDFD 220 PHILOSOPHICAL ORIENTATION TO EDUCATION 10

Childhood Art Education Oppression

Explanation Mortality Inquiry Responsibility

SOME REASONING & INQUIRY Sticking to the point

MOVES: Locating the inquiry
Defining terms Following the inquiry where it leads
Classifying and categorizing Self-correcting
Identifying contradictions
Identifying fallacies
Exemplifying SOME DIALOGIC MOVES:
Generalizing Listening
Formulating and working with criteria Responding
Working with analogies Restating
Working with if/then Reformulating
Working with parts and wholes Clarifying
Working with logical sequences Taking turns
Proposing an idea Remaining sensitive to context
Connecting and distinguishing ideas Translating between various
Evaluating examples expressive, cognitive, and discursive
Detecting assumptions styles and registers
Asking for evidence, criteria, reasons Remaining aware of complexity
Proposing a broader hypothesis Recognizing meaning
Exploringalternatives and possibilities Entertaining different perspectives
Dealing with ambiguity Putting ego in perspective
Building on each other’s ideas Entering the world view of others
Questioning Being sensitive to beliefs of others
Summarizing Tolerating ambiguity
Drawing (temporary) conclusions
EDFD 220 PHILOSOPHICAL ORIENTATION TO EDUCATION 11
EDFD 220 PHILOSOPHICAL ORIENTATION TO EDUCATION 12

SOCRATIC QUESTIONS
Questions of clarification
What do you mean by …?
Are you saying that …?
How are you using the word …?
Could you give me an example of …?
Does anyone have questions for Gabriel?
Questions that probe assumptions
What is she assuming?
Do you think that assumption is reasonable?
Why would someone make that assumption?
Are there any hidden assumptions in that question / statement?

Questions that probe reasons and evidence

Can you give an example / counter-example to illustrate your point?
What are your reasons for saying that?
Do you agree with her reasons?
But is that evidence good enough?
What criteria are you using to make that judgment?
Do you think that source is an appropriate authority?

Questions about viewpoints or perspectives

What would be another way of putting that?
Are any other beliefs on this subject possible?
Are there circumstances in which your view might be incorrect?
How are Cheng’s and Maria’s ideas alike / different?
Supposing someone wanted to disagree with you; what do you think they would say?
What if someone were to suggest that …?
Can we try to see the issue from their point of view?

Questions that probe implications and consequences

What would follow from what you say?
If we say this is unethical, how about that?
What would be the likely consequences of behaving like that?
Are we prepared to accept those consequences?
Do you think you might be jumping to conclusions in this case?

Questions about the question

Do you think that is an appropriate question?
How is that question relevant?
What does that question assume?
Can we think of a question that would highlight a different dimension of the issue?
How is that question going to help us?
Have we come any closer to solving the problem or answering the question?
*Maughn Gregory. adapted from Richard Paul and others by Sharp & Splitter: Teaching for Better Thinking
EDFD 220 PHILOSOPHICAL ORIENTATION TO EDUCATION 13
EDFD 220 PHILOSOPHICAL ORIENTATION TO EDUCATION 14

SAMPLE ABSTRACTS
EDFD 220-XX
WEEK II
DAVID KENNEDY
MILLER AND GATTO

In “The World is Changing, But Schools Aren’t Keeping Up,” Ron Miller argues that we are at a
turning point in planetary history, an “evolutionary shift,” triggered by climate change, species
extinction, and the depletion of resources, which will soon bring our affluent way of life to an end.
There are three choices possible—1) remaining hopeful that we can solve these problems through
technology, 2) succumbing to the the brutal, dystopic instinct for self-preservation, or 3)
developing “new dimensions of our humanity” resulting in “cultural transformation.” Education is
the “primary vehicle” for the latter, since it is “where a society most explicitly declares its vision
for the future.” Conventional public education, however, is stuck in an outdated model, which is
non-democratic, authoritarian, and preoccupied in turning out a “standard product” through a
“transmission” control model--rather than a “transformational” model--with a standardized
curriculum, and a mechanization of the learning process based on an outdated industrial economy,
which is only making matters worse. Education for cultural transformation has different
assumptions about childhood, learning and development, and understands itself in terms of
“dynamic, open, self-regulating systems,” which is in conflict with the increasingly inflexible,
bureaucratic systems and an exaggerated conservatism that Miller sees as desperate, repressive
and reactionary resistance to the historical imperative of change. Education for cultural
transformation is focused on “the act of making meaning of our experience,” and “respects the
child,” seeing each child as, quoting Emerson, a “new product of Nature,” with an intelligence
and a character that “unfold from within,” and which calls for a pedagogical model based on
dialogue and emergence.

In “The Seven-Lesson Schoolteacher,” John Taylor Gatto argues that our public schools have a
hidden curriculum, by which he means a set of unspoken “lessons” that everyone learns without
their being taught except indirectly, by example, and in the way the curriculum is organized. Not
even the teachers are aware they are teaching them. In Chapter 1, “The Seven-Lesson
Schoolteacher,” he identifies seven mis-educational “hidden teachings” of what he calls
“compulsory, government monopoly mass schooling”: 1) Confusion, through teaching
disconnected facts so that nothing makes logical sense; 2) Class Position through classifying and
tracking students, and identifying them with their test scores, teaching them to “stay in their place”;
3) Indifference, teaching through interrupting students’ learning with bells and requirements and
making everything abstract and non-relevant; 4) Emotional Dependency by encouraging students
to depend on the teacher for affirmation and punishing their expressions of individuality; 5)
Intellectual Dependency, by teaching students always to wait until they are told what to do,
discouraging their curiosity, and persuading them they can’t think for themselves; 6) Provisional
Self-Esteem, by subtly persuading them that their self-respect should “depend on expert opinion,”
through constantly evaluating and judging them through report cards and grades; and 7) One Can’t
Hide, by keeping students under constant surveillance and encouraging them to “tattle” on each
other, denying their privacy and thus teaching them that “no one can be trusted.” He sees these
lessons as part of a national system of social engineering for a “pyramidical social order”, that
EDFD 220 PHILOSOPHICAL ORIENTATION TO EDUCATION 15

actually “dumbs us down” as a nation, in order to make it easier for the state to “maintain a society
where some people take more than their share.” Two hundred years ago, before the advent of the
public system, people were more literate and more independent-minded than they are today, he
claims. He finishes the chapter by analyzing the history of this process, identifying it with class
interest, economic oppression racism and xenophobia. He concludes with the claim that
“institutional school-teaching is destructive to children,” and that “the disaster of seven-lesson
schools is going to grow unless we do something bold and decisive with the mess of government
monopoly schooling.” Gatto’s chapter illustrates the critique by Miller of contemporary
conventional schooling.